Understanding Service Innovation Approaches: Design Thinking
and Service Design – An Exploratory Study
Cátia Sofia Costa Miranda
Master Thesis
Supervisor at FEUP: Professora Doutora Lia Patrício Joint supervisor: Professora Doutora Ana Torres
Abstract
Service Design and Design Thinking emerged due to the changes on the overall business landscape, wanting to increasingly focus on service innovation. Hence, the need to apply service innovation approaches has arisen and has been developed through the years. Therefore, Design Thinking and Service Design are a new field of design research where the vocabulary and paradigm are still developing. They are considered human-centered, creative and practical, to produce solutions to problems and needs.
An exploratory study using qualitative methodology was developed with the purpose of investigating Design Thinking and Service Design concept, principles, object, process and tools. Based on these results, it was developed a comparison with the existing literature to understand the major divergences and convergences between them. In order to make this comparative analysis, people who had already applied these approaches to projects of service and product innovation were interviewed, particularly professionals and students. In total, were performed 20 in-depth interviews which were recorded, transcribed and then analysed using NVivo 12.
Results suggest that Design Thinking has several similarities with Service Design, namely that Design Thinking is one of the components of Service Design. Despite the results of the study, there is lack of theoretical content on this subject. Besides, Design Thinking is considered a creative process for Service Design since it includes physical evidences which support the Service Design approach, which is not consistent with the literature. Results of this research also show that students are more aware of Design Thinking concept, principles, object, process and tools than of Service Design. Another biggest result is the gap between professionals and students concerning Service Design. Interviews show that students do not have a developed knowledge regarding this approach.
Future work about how the Design Thinking and Service Design approaches integrate among each other, is an important research to be developed. Furthermore, a study regarding Design Thinking being considered a process for Service Design may also be a topic to investigate, as well as exploring the reason why professionals and students have different levels of understanding on the subject.
Resumo
O Service Design e o Design Thinking surgiram devido às mudanças no mundo dos negócios, pretendendo cada vez mais focar-se na inovação de serviços. Assim, surgiu a necessidade de aplicar abordagens de inovação de serviços que têm sido desenvolvidas ao longo dos anos. Desta forma, o Design Thinking e o Service Design são um novo campo de pesquisa em design onde o vocabulário e o paradigma ainda estão em desenvolvimento. É considerado que estas abordagens são centradas no utilizador, criativas e párticas, e produzem soluções para problemas e necessidades.
Desenvolveu-se um estudo exploratório através de uma metodologia qualitativa, com o objetivo de investigar o conceito, princípios, objeto, processo e ferramentas do Design Thinking e do Service Design. Baseado nos resultados, desenvolveu-se uma comparação com a literatura existente para perceber as maiores divergências e convergências entre elas. De forma a elaborar esta análise comparativa, pessoas que já tinham aplicado estas abordagens em projetos foram entrevistadas, particularmente profissionais e estudantes. No total, realizaram-se 20 entrevistas em profundidade que foram gravadas, transcitas e depois analisadas no NVivo 12.
Os resultados sugerem que o Design Thinking tem muitas similaridades com o Service Design, nomeadamente que o Design Thinking é uma das componentes do Service Design. Apesar dos resultados deste estudo, há falta de conteúdo teórico acerca deste assunto. Além disso, o Design Thinking é considerado um processo criativo do Service Design uma vez que inclui evidências físicas que suportam o processo de Service Design, o que não é consistente com a literatura. Os resultados deste estudo também mostram que os estudantes estão mais conscientes do conceito, princípios, objeto, processo e ferramentas do Design Thinking do que do Service Design. Outro grande resultado é a diferença entre os profissionais e estudantes relativamente ao Service Design. As entrevistas mostram que os estudantes não têm um conhecimento desenvolvido relativamente a esta abordagem.
Trabalho futuro acerca de como o Design Thinking e o Service Design se integram é algo importante a ser desenvolvido. Além disso, estudo relativamente ao facto do Design Thinking ser considerado um processo criativo do Service Design poderá ser também um tópico a explorar, bem como a razão da discrepância de conhecimento entre os profissionais e os estudantes.
Acknowledgments
In first place, I thank to my parents, who taught me the importance of family and the path of honesty and who allowed me to achieve this goal.
I want to thank my supervisor, Lia Patrício, for the support and guidance throughout the project. I also want to show my gratitude to my joint supervisor, Ana Torres, for the frequent concern and for being always so helpful and guiding me in this project.
I am grateful to Porto Design Factory for the possibility to collaborate in this project.
Thanks to my grandmother for always believing in me and helping me to build the person I am today.
Thanks to my sister, for all the motivation and example given throught this journey.
Thanks to Daniela, Regina, Sofia, Pedro and Renato who, beyond distance, have always remained close. Thanks for your concern, affection and your frienship for so many years. Last but not least, thanks to Ricardo, for the constant willingness to listen to my relieves, for being my biggest pillar in this journey and for all the support and attention.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Project Background and Motivation ... 1
1.2 Problem Description ... 2
1.3 Research Questions ... 3
1.4 Report Outline ... 4
2 Literature Review ... 5
2.1 Service, Service-dominant Logic and Service System ... 5
2.2 Customer Experience, Complex Service Systems and Service Experience ... 5
2.3 Design Thinking ... 6
2.3.1Process, Principles and Tools ... 7
2.4 Service Design ... 9
2.4.1Process, Principles and Tools ... 9
2.5 Integrating Design Thinking and Service Design ... 13
3 Methodology ... 15 3.1 Qualitative Research ... 15 3.2 Sample Design ... 15 3.3 Data Collection ... 17 3.4 Data Analysis ... 17 4 Results ... 20 4.1 Design Thinking ... 20 4.1.1Concept ... 20 4.1.2Principles ... 21 4.1.3Object ... 24 4.1.4Process ... 24 4.1.5Tools ... 26
4.1.6Advantages and Disadvantages ... 29
4.1.7Design Thinking Literature vs Practice ... 30
4.2 Service Design ... 32 4.2.1Concept ... 32 4.2.2Principles ... 32 4.2.3Object ... 35 4.2.4Process ... 35 4.2.5Tools ... 37
4.2.6Advantages and Disadvantages ... 38
4.2.7Service Design Literature vs Practice ... 40
4.3 Comparing Design Thinking and Service Design: Practice Context ... 42
5 Conclusion and Future Research ... 44
References ... 47
List of Tables
Table 1- Integration of DT and SD --- 14
Table 2- Organization of the sample design--- 16
Table 3- Number of respondents in each DT principle --- 21
Table 4- Number of respondents in each DT object --- 24
Table 5- Number of respondents in each DT step --- 24
Table 6- Number respondent in each DT tool --- 26
Table 7- Number of respondents in each DT advantage --- 29
Table 8- Number of respondents in each DT disadvantage --- 30
Table 9- Major differences in literature and practice regarding DT --- 31
Table 10- Number of respondents in each SD principle --- 33
Table 11- Number of respondents in each SD object --- 35
Table 12- Number of respondents in each SD step --- 35
Table 13- Number of respondents in each SD tool --- 37
Table 14- Number of respondents in each SD advantage --- 39
Table 15- Number of respondents in each SD disadvantage --- 39
Table 16- Major differences in literature and practice regarding SD --- 41
List of Figures
Figure 1- Objectives of the study --- 3
Figure 2- Non-linear steps of DT (Source: Dam & Siang (2019) --- 8
Figure 3- Double Diamond Model (Source: Design Council (2019)) --- 10
Figure 4: Service Design Process (Source: Patrício & Fisk (2013)) --- 10
Figure 5- NVivo12 coding tree --- 19
Figure 6- Example of a Matrix in NVivo12 --- 19
Figure 7- Venn Diagram about the DT tools and each step --- 28
List of Abbreviations DT- Design Thinking G-D- Goods Dominant PDF- Porto Design Factory SD- Service Design
S-D- Service- dominant
SSMED- Service Science Management Engineering and Design TISDD – This is Service Design Doing
1 Introduction
This first chapter introduces the main topic of this master thesis. It briefly presents the project background and motivation, main research objectives as well as the project report structure. 1.1 Project Background and Motivation
Consumers habits have been changing over the past decades. The purchase of goods and services is nowadays an easy and simple task, as it can be done from anywhere at anytime. New trends are continuously emerging, and consumers are adapting to them, while they became more aware of the products and services they use and buy. That way, businesses need to adapt to the changes, improving marketing and innovation strategies in order to become more competitive. Companies have been transforming into service-oriented companies which involves some challenges regarding for example, the business ecosystem and processes (Cherbakov, Galambos, Harishankar, Kalyana, & Rackham, 2010).
The rise of service-based business models as transformed the way world works, becoming the services sector, the dominant economic activity in most advanced industrial economies. Services industries have expanded fast in the past decades and now have more than 70% of total value added in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (Sheehan, 2006). However, despite this domination, there is lack of scientific understanding of modern services (Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006). It was only on the twenty-first century that the research about services arose, with IBM and the Service Science Management Engineering and Design (SSMED) which is defined as the application of scientific, management, engineering and design on tasks that a person, organization or system perform with another person, organization or system. It was here that the research of services, especially the study about service innovation began and thus attracted the attention of the academic community (Spohrer & Kwan, 2009).
Service innovation refers to the creation of new and/or enhanced service offerings, service processes, and service business models (Ostrom et al., 2010). Innovations can be driven by a detailed understanding of people’s needs and their preferences. Hence, with the change of the overall business landscape, human-centered, creative, iterative and practical approaches are required to produce innovative ideas and solutions to problems so that companies gain competitive advantage (Brown, 2008; Evenson & Dubberly, 2010).
Service Design (SD) is an interdisciplinary, creative and holistic approach which is becoming commonly used to improve and create services. This approach considers the customer or user as the starting point for launching a new service or improve an existing one (Holmlid & Evenson, 2008). Therefore, the focus of this approach is to provide a holistic and well-planned customer experience, always taking into consideration the customer problems and needs (Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011).
Design Thinking (DT) is a human-centered approach to innovation based on design tools to integrate the needs of people, the potential technologies and the requirements in order for businesses to have success (Brown, 2008). It is useful for any type of organization, as it allows to work with open and complex problems (Dorst, 2010).
SD and DT are a new field of design investigation where the vocabulary and paradigm are still developing. Both are human-centered and can be applied regarding problem framing, information gathering and interpretation, solution ideation and evaluation in the development of an existing service or designing a new service solution. SD and DT are involved in the called
Human-Centered Design which captures insights and produces innovative solutions that reflect the needs of the consumers (Brown, 2008).
There are a variety of different process models in literature and on companies’ websites regarding the SD and DT process and these process models vary according to the number of steps or the precision identified in each phase. In general, first there is an identification and discovery phase, where there is a study about the service context and the user, as well as the business environment of the client. The next phases, which are building, conceptualizing and creation phases are about visualizing, co-creating, participatory design, prototyping and testing. The principal objective in comparing the service concepts is to discovery the profitability and value of the service to the customer (Patrício & Fisk, 2013; Plattner, 2015).
During the creation of services, user involvement is essential. The user’s role can vary from a more proactive participation where they contribute for building the challenges, to an inactive role where the data is interpreted with direct contact to the user (Keinonen, 2009).
1.2 Problem Description
Companies are increasingly providing services. Studies have shown that companies generate, on average, one-third of their revenue from services. However, besides this predominance, companies have struggle when transiting from product-centric to service-centric business. Delivering services requires several specific operating processes, capabilities, platforms and resources. Service strategies help organizations to overtake the problem of growth maintenance (Kindström & Kowalkowski, 2015).
Hence, it has become increasingly necessary to study these approaches, as they are present in today’s businesses in which everything is a service. However, beyond the growing body of literature concentrating on service innovation, exploratory research focusing on service innovation approaches remains scarce. Even though there is a mass of contributions discussing the concept and the process of DT and SD, there is lack of clarification regarding each approach. In addition, there is lack of research about how these two approaches relate with each other and how they can be used in practice, thereby constituting the main challenge of this study. In order to fill these gaps, this research integrates people who had already applied DT and SD to projects of service and product innovation were interviewed, namely students and professionals.
Porto Design Factory (PDF) was the chosen institution to develop this research, since it welcomes several students to develop service innovation projects using human-centered approaches and working directly with business organizations. Besides, it has also assisting teachers who were part of the study, too. Other professionals working directly with the design of solutions outside PDF were also part of the study in order to diversify the sample.
1.3 Research Questions
The existing gaps in literature allow some questions to be formed regarding DT and SD. Therefore, the research questions of this study were based on the questions that arose when reading literature about DT and SD, which are the following:
• How are Design Thinking and Service Design approaches seen in the literature and used in practice?
• To what extent are Design Thinking and Service Design different and complementary? The study was developed always in accordance with the research questions, which means that the data collection was structured to answer to these questions. Figure 1illustrates the objectives of this study.
The first question regards the understanding of DT and SD both in the available theoretical materials and real practices of these approaches, followed by a comparison between the two. Hence, it was important to consider professionals and novice on DT and SD as they have different experiences and can answer this question with different insights and considerations about these approaches.
To give a response to this research question, during the data collection, interrogations related with the scope of the project were made in order to understand the object that was being studied and questions regarding the approach’s principles, process and tools.
The second question aims to analyse in depth DT and SD in order to know in which aspects they diverge and converge and whether they are two separate approaches or if they complement each other.
In order to answer this research question, after participants being asked about the approaches they have been using, they were questioned about the main differences, similarities and overlaps between the used approaches.
1.4 Report Outline
To answer the research questions, this study was divided in three stages: 1) collect knowledge and investigate literature on DT and SD; 2) Follow a qualitative approach to collect data and analyse the participant’s insights about DT and SD; and 3) Present the results regarding the information in the literature and the evidences retrieved from the interviews, answering to the research questions presented previously.
Section 2 presents the theoretical aspects which serve as a reference and basis for this study. In the literature review the following subjects are addressed: Service Science, DT, SD and the integration of DT and SD. These topics support and frame the study and serve for the purpose comparison with the next research steps.
In order to present the process carried out during the study, an exploratory study using qualitative research was conducted and described in Section 3. Therefore, this section describes the reason for choosing this methodology, the explanation of the sample design and its organization, as well as the data collection made through in-depth interviews to professionals and students and its analysis built with the help of the software NVivo12.
Section 4 is based in the theory presented in Section 2 and the collection of information described in Section 3 as it states the analysis and discussion of the results, comparing the information gathered in the literature with the collected one during the interviews. Hence, a comparison between DT and SD is also made, answering the research questions. To this end, following the data analysis, the results were organized in categories, being each one of them analysed. Then, the results of these categories were compared with the ones in the literature, ending with the comparison among DT and SD.
Section 5 discusses the main findings of this study, as well as the main faced challenges. Additionally, some topics for future research are suggested.
2 Literature Review
This section contains the research areas relevant to this research in order to, provide an understanding about these topics before presenting the followed methodology in the next section. Considering that research, this literature review encompasses three principal subjects: 1) Service Science 2) Design Thinking and 3) Service Design.
2.1 Service, Service-dominant Logic and Service System
With the advances in technology, access to information was facilitated, allowing to achieve customers through several channels. This access to information has also allowed new configurations of resources (Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006), while the focal point transited from tangible resources to intangible resources (Spohrer, Maglio, Bailey, & Gruhl, 2007), and their particular way to create value (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2007). Thereby, over the years, companies have discovered that could differentiate through the delivery of a service together with a product (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, Johnson, & Sanden, 2000). Service-dominant (S-D) logic emerged which is supported by the value-in-use and cocreation of value rather than the value-in-exchange and embedded-value, concepts of the goods-dominant (G-D) logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2014).
With the development of this S-D logic, it was clear the lack of research on the subject. However, since the beginning of the twenty-first century this reality has been changing, as there have been made researches about a service in different fields such as design, engineering and marketing, with the aim to unite these fields. Thus SSMED or service science is emerging as a discipline intending to end this research gap as it aims to understand the innovation of service systems, joining many disciplines (Spohrer & Kwan, 2009).
2.2 Customer Experience, Complex Service Systems and Service Experience
Customer experiences are crucial to differentiate and add value to the organization’s offerings (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Experiences are co-created through the interactions among the customer and the organization, being these interactions dependent on several factors which are not only determined by the service provider (Verhoef et al., 2009). Although the service is designed aiming to provide experiences to the customer, these experiences cannot be predesigned (Patrício & Fisk, 2011). Hence, a service must be designed in a holistic and adaptable way, allowing customers to co-create experiences regarding their preferences (Patrício & Fisk, 2013).
A service is nowadays empowered by complex systems, which are in turn configurations of people, processes, technologies, physical evidence and other resources which allow customers to co-create value (Maglio, Vargo, Caswell, & Spohrer, 2009; Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011; Patrício & Fisk, 2013). The service systems formulate a customer value constellation whereby customers co-create value for an activity.
To design the service systems some aspects must be defined: service offerings and interfaces, tangible evidence, service processes, people’s roles and technology solutions. Service experiences are co-created by customers from the exploration of the service system through a sequence of service encounters. These last ones are the points where the customer interacts with a service interface. Thus, it is important for the organizations not to just design the service encounters in detail, but also look upon how each one of them contribute to the service experience (Patrício & Fisk, 2013).
2.3 Design Thinking
There is not a unique meaning for DT, it is viewed differently regarding the situation, being it practical or theoretical (Ulla, Jill, & Mehves, 2013).
Design Thinking (DT) stimulates innovative transformation and development and it is defined by several ways from different authors (Gurusamy, Srinivasaraghavan, & Adikari, 2016). Brown (2008), president and CEO of IDEO, which was one of the first companies that started implementing design tools in various branches, defines DT as “human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success”.
DT nowadays it is not only a cognitive process, but has turn into a toolkit for process innovation, which connects the creative design approach to the traditional business thinking, with the objective of planning and solving problems (Tschimmel, 2012). It allows users to have hands-on experiences with products and services during its development which helps to develop a solution that better fits user’s needs (Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011)
Thereby, over the years there were developed three visions on Design Thinking (DT) (Kimbell, 2011):
• DT as a cognitive style concentrating the attraction on individuals and their capabilities (Dorst, 2010);
• DT as discipline for solving wicked problems (Buchanan, 2009);
• DT as resource for business aiming to create innovative solutions (Brown, 2008). DT embraces human skills namely creativity and synthesis (Cross, 2005), business, and several technological aspects in problem solving. It is a human-centric methodology which integrates experts from a wide range of areas such as design, social sciences, engineering and business (Gurusamy et al., 2016). This integration raises divergent and convergent thinking. Divergent thinking is used to create innovative ideas, through the collection of several inputs, resulting on the definition of the problem. In this phase it is important for multidisciplinary teams to obtain all kinds of information about the field to be contextualized with it and analyse the several factors concerning the problem they want to solve (Brown, 2009; Buchanan, 2009). Creativity is significant to Divergent Thinking, as it requires a process of applying new knowledge (Gurteen, 1998). Thus, subsequently in the Convergent Thinking, teams put ideas into action and chose the most innovative solution (Brown, 2009).
Nowadays, organizations have gone through transformations to provide an improved customer service and experience. As a result, the need for new business models for digital transformation emerged, being this transformation implemented using agile methodology. One of the more important aspects about digital transformation is creativity and the exchange of ideas (Gurusamy et al., 2016).
Meinel & Leifer (2012), considered DT relation to IT development approaches in the context of agility. These authors concluded that DT and agile have some analogies such as being user centric and the need of an interactive learning and communication between the team.
Agile methods have been increasingly used in environments involving innovative and dynamic project development. These methods aim to deliver a small amount of work to the customers as soon as possible in small iterations (Gurusamy et al., 2016). Agile methodology does not pursue sequential practices alike the traditional ones. It is essentially applied when there is some ambiguity of the requirements and the customer has not an exact idea of the desired output.
Therefore, with Agile, the customer explains the general objective, and then the system is developed in sprints, which have different goals and always require a retrospective analyses to know if the team is working according to the user requirements (Steinke, Al-deen, & Labrie, 2017).
The integration of user-centered design specialists with agile developers in each iteration, improves the usability of the products, increasing in this way the value of the innovative development (Fox, Sillito, & Maurer, 2008).
2.3.1 Process, Principles and Tools
There are different process models for DT and although they include different stages and tools, the majority is based on the combination of divergent and convergent thinking. Some of the most well-known models are the ones created by the design agency IDEO (3 I model and the HCD model), the Double Diamond model from the British Design Council and the model created by the Hasso-Plattner-Institute called Design Thinking Process (Tschimmel, 2012). 3 I Model considers that DT has 3 main steps: inspiration, ideation and implementation and the HCD Model forms an acronym for hearing, creating and delivering (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). The Double Diamond model describes divergent and convergent phases (Tschimmel, 2012). In general Design Thinking, begins with a problem that needs a solution, always having the final user as the focus. According to (Plattner, 2015), Design Thinking has five stages:
• Empathize: during this phase the researcher tries to understand the customer. In order to design something that meets the customer’s expectations it is crucial that the researcher gain empathy to understand what is important and know the intended results;
• Define: considering what the researcher learned during the empathize phase, in the define stage is where all the issues are clarified. In other words, is when the researcher, based on the gathered data, defines the challenge that will be faced by clarifying all this data;
• Ideate: this stage is when the researcher focuses on generating ideas that could be possible solutions, or part of the solution;
• Prototype: in this stage the researcher creates a prototype that can be either post-it notes or a physical product. The aim here is to create a prototype that is as realistic as possible to receive good feedback and insights for improvement; • Test: this stage is when the researcher solicit feedback from the users about the
created prototypes. Testing is another opportunity to empathize with the user and compare the feedback with the initial one. This last feedback helps redefining prototypes and know if the defined problems are being addressed in the best way.
This model shows that stages are not always sequential, and that some steps can loop to previous ones (see Figure 2) (Dam & Siang, 2019).
DT embraces four important pillars: empathy, collaboration, testing and human-centered. DT is human-centered as it integrates all people including users and stakeholders during the process. Therefore, being focused on the user, it is important to understand their needs and behaviour trough an empathizing process. To supress these needs, good and innovative ideas must emerge. In this way, teams must work in a collaborative way in order to achieve consensus to then test several times in order to achieve a desired solution (Brown, 2009).
Tools are essential in the DT process for an efficient decision making and communication among the members of the multidisciplinary teams. These tools can be physical or a software and help teams to visualize the design process and reflect about it through a convergent or divergent view (Chasanidou, Gasparini, & Lee, 2015).
According to Plattner (2015), there are some important tools that must be done during the steps of a DT process. Therefore, tools as interviews, observation and conversations allow the researcher to empathize with the user and gather requirements. Also, building personas, role objectives and explore customer’s pain points are helpful in the defining stage. In the prototyping stage, several tools such as building prototypes, body storming, mind mapping and sketching are important to give new views about the problem or even a possible solution (Plattner, 2015).
Liedtka & Ogilvie (2012) also divide tools through the stages of the DT process. These authors consider that DT can be illustrated by combining four basic questions, which have 10 essential tools:
• What is?: Journey Mapping, Value Chain Analysis, Mind Mapping; • What if?: Brainstorming, Concept Development;
• What wows?: Assumption Testing, Rapid Prototyping; • What works?: Customer Co-creation, Learning Launch.
Chasanidou et al. (2015) consider also the stakeholders map, customer journey map, service blueprint, business model innovation and rapid prototyping tools which can be implemented during the DT process.
According to Brown (2009), every challenge should start with “How might we?” questions, as they are a frame to ideate and for launching brainstorming and visual thinking, which in turn contribute to divergent thinking of creating choices. On the other hand, a simple tool as the post-it note is used for convergence. Besides, storyboards, help to create alternative scenarios. To gather more precise information about the interaction between people and groups, tools like video ethnography and computer interaction analysis are also important (Brown 2009). 2.4 Service Design
Through Service Design (SD), innovative ideas can be created (Patrício & Fisk, 2013). It involves not only the creation of a new service but also the improvement of existing service offerings, processes and business models (Ostrom et al., 2010) as well as the all experience regarding the process of transforming the service into a feasible solution and its delivery (Moritz, 2005).
SD is a creative, iterative and human-centered approach, since it is based on a deep understanding of the different customers and stakeholders and their context. (Patrício, Gustafsson, & Fisk, 2018). It considers people, processes, physical environment (Teixeira et al., 2012) and the applicable technologies (Patrício & Fisk, 2013). Also, it conceptualizes service solutions and prototypes the way the service can be performed (Brown, 2008; Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011).
SD is a holistic and multidisciplinary approach as it combines and understands multiple areas, that range from fields such as operations and engineering to marketing and design (Patrício & Fisk, 2013; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2009), which are associated with the continuous application of design methodologies and principles to the design and development of a service (Holmlid & Evenson, 2008).
Being human-centered, SD enhances organizations and people by connecting them with the network of stakeholders and thus allowing the co-creation of value through the discovery of new opportunities (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011).
As a result, SD aims to create a service which is “useful, usable, desirable from the user perspective, and efficient, effective and different from the provider perspective. It is a strategic approach that helps providers to develop a clear strategic positioning for their service offerings.” (Mager & Sung, 2011).
The process of SD is fostered by the design mindset, always trying to find innovative solutions for a problem. SD is an iterative process, since it works “in a series of repeating, deepening, explorative loops” (Stickdorn, Hormess, & Lawrence, 2017).
2.4.1 Process, Principles and Tools
There are several frameworks to illustrate the SD process, but this process is commonly illustrated from three to more steps. They share the same view about the first step which is related with an exploration and research phase and the final step associated with the delivery and implementation of the solution (Foglieni, Villari, & Maffei, 2018).
‘Double Diamond”, illustrated in Figure 3, is a well-known representation developed by British Design Council which divides the SD process in 4 steps (discover, define, develop and deliver),
varying with divergent and convergent moments during the iterative process (Foglieni et al., 2018).
Stickdorn, Hormess, and Lawrence (2017) created the This is Service Design Doing (TISDD) Service Design Framework and consider that SD has 4 main activities: research, ideation, prototyping and implementation. On the other hand, Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011) also consider four main activities but call it analysing, generating, developing and prototyping. These authors refer to this process as the Four Design Activities of a Design Process.
According to Patrício & Fisk (2013) and Stickdorn & Scheinder (2011) this iterative process passes through several stages: (1) exploration, (2) ideation, (3) reflection and (4) implementation, as illustrates Figure 4.
The first stage, exploration, can be defined as the study and understanding of the customer and all stakeholders regarding their experience and activities, problems, context and needs in a human-centered approach (Thomke & Hippel, 2002). The goal on this stage is not to achieve a solution but identify the problem and interpret user’s behaviour and their perception about the problem (Brown, 2008; Patrício & Fisk, 2013; Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011). The customer involvement during this stage is essential to support and help service designers enhance the process of generating innovative ideas to then grow a better service interpretation (Steen, Manschot, & Koning, 2011). In fact, co-creation improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. On one hand, improves efficiency in the sense that it increases the service, reducing the risk of failure. On the other hand, improves effectiveness, since the service is developed according to the user’s needs, culminating in good attitudes regarding the service and also better
Figure 4: Service Design Process (Source: Patrício & Fisk (2013)) Figure 3- Double Diamond Model (Source: Design Council (2019))
relationships between the service provider and the customer (Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 2010).
The second stage, ideation, is a generative stage where new ideas are created and developed. In this stage it is important to work with the main stakeholders and multidisciplinary teams in order to generate a wide range of different ideas. At this stage, visual representation helps teams to communicate their ideas. Ideation is strictly related with the following step, reflection, since ideation seeks for new service concepts and reflection tests and prototypes that concepts in an interactive way. This stage is crucial as it allows an analysis of several solutions before the implementation (Brown, 2008; Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011). In essence, when ideas are generated, a selection process must take place and consequently all elements of the service system and the service experience must be designed to then be validated (Foglieni et al., 2018). The third stage, reflection, involves prototyping the service concepts and testing them with the customers in an iterative way. In other words, the generated ideas and concepts are immersed in a process of testing, improving and retesting (Patrício & Fisk, 2013). Prototyping makes users and the design team perceive the service concept and know how the service will look and work, through a flexible and holistic process (Saffer, 2010). Additionally, with this perception of the service concept, users can give feedback and empower or even give new ideas to the existing service. Thus, this activity also enhance communication (Teixeira et al., 2012). The fourth and last stage, implementation, is when the new service concept is operationalized and delivered to the customer, involving planning, implementing and reviewing all the necessary changes, being also an iterative process, which can repeat many times before being delivered to the market (Brown, 2008; Patrício & Fisk, 2013; Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011). When building solutions, service principles are extremely suggested in order to outline the solution following a logic and taking into account the goals of that solution (Erl, 2005). Therefore, there are some authors that established some principles that must be followed when developing a service design process.
Stickdorn and Scheinder (2011), established some SD principles namely: user-centered, co-creative, sequencing, evidencing and holistic. However, SD have evolved and recently the authors changed these principles, due to the lack of some important characteristics in the previous principles, particularly the iteration, lack of opinions and concepts and lack of relevance regarding business processes and opportunities (Stickdorn et al., 2017).
In accordance with Stickdorn, Hormess, and Lawrence (2017), the new principles of service design are:
• Human-centered as it considers users and stakeholders participation; • Collaborative since it integrates multidisciplinary teams;
• Iterative as the process is constituted by iterative stages of understanding the customer, designing the service offering and prototyping the experience;
• Sequential as the service actions are all interrelated through a sequence;
• Real as the process must occur in a real context, which means researching and prototyping real ideas and transforming intangible in tangible.
• Holistic since it works with all parts of the system, addressing the needs of the users and stakeholders.
In regard to SD tools, there are no rules for the use of these tools, as they are used in different projects and in different ways, sometimes they are even used several times during a SD process (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011).
Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011) divide the different tools into the four principal design activities of analysing, generating, developing and prototyping. The tools used in the analysing activity, aim to gather, document and share information. Some of those tools are customer journey map, emotional map, design documentary, video-blog, film diary, user diary and story collection. The tools used in generating ideas seek for build meaning from the information gathered from the users and stakeholders. These tools are: idea sketches, glimpse, service mood board. In the developing activity, tools are used to elaborate and develop service ideas, being some of them: storyboard, service blueprint, expressive service blueprint, visual service scripts, service breakdown, system map, service interaction design guidelines. Finally, the prototyping tools give conditions to test the service quickly, as follows: video sketch, living labs, FASPE (fast service prototyping and simulation for evaluation), experience prototype (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011).
Alves & Nunes (2013) developed a study aiming to understand which tools were most commonly used by the SD community and their relevance. As a result to this study, these authors, analysed 25 tools and methods such as service blueprint, brainstorming, contextual interviews, customer journey map, focus group, observations and prototyping. Service blueprint is a model that details the service interaction nature and features in order to verify, implement and maintain the service (Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011). Customer journey map is a visualization of customer experiences to achieve a certain objective. It is used to see which parts of the service work for the user and the ones that need improvements. Brainstorming is a problem-solving technique which is applied by a group to generate ideas. Contextual interviews are used to gather information regarding the daily activities of communities. Focus group is a tool that combine a group of selected people controlled by a moderator to give feedback regarding a subject. Observation is used to identify problems during the interaction of people with the service. Prototyping is a tool to test the service through the observation of the interaction of the user with the prototype (Erlhoff & Marshall, 2003).
Beyond these, Stickdorn, Hormess, and Lawrence (2017) also consider other tools like research data, personas, journey maps, system maps, service prototypes and the business model canvas. These authors divide SD tools into data collection and data visualization, synthesis, and analysis. Data collection tools are desk research which involves preparatory and secondary research; self-ethnography approaches which include autoethnography and online ethnography; participant approaches involving participant observation, contextual and in-depth interviews and focus groups; non-participant approaches which include non-participant observation, mobile ethnography and cultural probes; co-creating workshops whose tools are personas, journey mapping and system mapping.
Regarding the tools of data visualization and analysis, Stickdorn, Hormess, and Lawrence (2017), consider eight: building on a research wall, creating personas, mapping journeys, mapping systems, developing key insights, generating jobs-to-be-done insights, writing user stories and compiling research reports.
In compliance with the Multilevel Service Design (MSD), which is a multidisciplinary approach to service design which integrates all contributions from interaction design, service science, management and engineering, service offerings are integrated at three hierarchical
levels: service concept, service system and service encounter (Patrício, Fisk, Falcão, & Constantine, 2011).
First it is important to develop a study about the costumer experience, which involves the value constellation experience, the service experience and the service encounter experience. This stage involves data collection techniques such as observation, focus groups, usability testing or walkthroughs. The value constellation experience shows the interactions between the customer and the different organizations, being a result of the several service experiences. The service experiences are co-created through the interactions between the customer and the service system, which are called service encounter experience (Patrício et al., 2011).
Consequently, based on the study about the customer experience, the customer value constellation is designed representing the service offerings and relationships, followed by the representation of the service system architecture and service system navigation. The service system architecture defines the structure of the service system and the service system navigation describes the different paths customers may follow across each service encounter. Finally, the service experience blueprint, aims to illustrate each service encounter (Patrício & Fisk, 2013). 2.5 Integrating Design Thinking and Service Design
In order to understand these approaches as a whole, it is important to analyse the dimensions involving each one of them. Therefore, during the literature review the concept, principles, objects, process and tools were addressed using various authors.
Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of DT and SD following the authors previously mentioned. From the analyses of the Table 1 it is possible to conclude that there are some repeated authors in DT and SD. In addition, there are also some recurrent terms, namely in the principles, process and tools. From this, it is remarkable the existence of overlaps between DT and SD, however there is a lack of theoretical evidence on this.
Regarding the concept, the essential point taken from literature is that DT is human-centered and work to get an innovative solution that go in accordance with the user’s problems and needs (Brown, 2008) as well as SD (Patrício et al., 2018).With respect to principles, Brown (2009) considers DT human-centered and collaborative as it focus working in teams and integrates the user in the process. Stickdorn et al. (2017) considers the same but in relation to DT. The studied object has also similarities since DT involves the development of a service (Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011) just as SD (Patrício et al., 2018).
Considering the process, Plattner (2015) divides DT into 4 steps, just like Patrício & Fisk (2013) and Stickdorn & Scheinder (2011) regarding SD, being the phase with the same denomination ideation.
Lastly, there are several tools considered in the two approaches. As shown in Table 1, some of them are used in both approaches, for instance observation, interviews, service blueprint, brainstorming and prototype. The salient differences are the how might we questions, and the learning launch used in DT and the cultural probes and conjoint analysis used in SD.
Table 1- Integration of DT and SD
Design Thinking Service Design Common
Concept Considered human-centered
approach as it applies the tools of a designer and embraces human skills to stimulate transformation and development (Brown, 2008)
It is a creative, iterative and human-centered approach, once it seeks for
understanding the users and stakeholders and their context
(Patrício et al., 2018)
Human-centered and work to get an innovative solution that
go in accordance with the user’s problems and needs (Brown, 2008) as well as SD (Patrício et
al., 2018)
Principles Empathy; Collaboration;
Testing; Human-centered (Brown, 2009)
Human-centered; Collaborative; Iterative; Sequential; Real; Holistic
(Stickdorn et al., 2017)
Human-centered and collaborative (Brown, 2009; Stickdorn et al.,
2017)
Objects Product; Service; Experiences
(Stickdorn & Scheinder, 2011)
Service; Service Systems (Patrício et al., 2018)
Service (Patrício et al., 2018; Stickdorn &
Scheinder, 2011)
Process 3 I Model: inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown &
Wyatt, 2010);
HCD Model: hearing, creating and delivering (Brown & Wyatt,
2010);
Double Diamond: divergent and convergent phases (Tschimmel,
2012);
The Design Thinking Model by the Hasso-Plattner-Institute:
Empathize; Define; Ideate; Prototype; Test (Plattner, 2015)
Service Design Process: exploration, ideation, reflection; implementation (Patrício & Fisk, 2013; Stickdorn &
Scheinder, 2011)
Double Diamond: discover, define, develop, deliver (Foglieni et al.,
2018);
TISDD Service Design Framework: research, ideation, prototyping and
implementation (Stickdorn et al., 2017);
Four Design Activities of a Design Process: analysing, generating, developing and prototyping (Meroni
& Sangiorgi, 2011)
Plattner (2015) divides DT into 4 steps, just like
Patrício & Fisk (2013) and Stickdorn & Scheinder (2011) regarding SD, being the
phase with the same denomination ideation.
Tools
Interview; Observation; Conversations; Personas; Role objectives; Explore customer’s pain points; Body Storming; Mind Mapping (Plattner, 2015);
Sketching; Value Chain Analysis; Brainstorming;
Concept Development Assumption; Customer
Co-creation; Learning Launch (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2012); Stakeholders Map; Customer Journey Map; Service Blueprint,
Business Model Innovation; Rapid prototyping tools (Chasanidou et al., 2015); “How
might we?” questions (Brown, 2009)
Affinity Diagram; Blueprint; Brainstorming, Character Profiles;
Conjoint Analyses; Contextual Interview; Customer Journey Map;
Cultural Probes; Documentaries; Empathy Tools/Probes; Ethnographic
User Research; Focus Group; Immersion (Workshop); Observations; Prototyping; Questionnaires/Surveys; Role Play;
Scenarios; Service Prototype; Shadowing; Stakeholders Map; Storyboarding; Task analysis Grid
(Alves & Nunes, 2013)
Observation, Interview, Service Blueprint, Brainstorming and
3 Methodology
In order to achieve the research objectives, an exploratory study using qualitative research was conducted. This chapter describes all the steps which enabled the results. Firstly, the chosen approach and respective justification will be described. Subsequently, it is explained how this approach was used through the presentation of the sample design, data collection and analyses. 3.1 Qualitative Research
An exploratory study is applied when seeking for an understanding about the general nature of a problem, the several possible hypotheses and relevant variables to be considered. This kind of research aims to increase knowledge about the research problem, define the focus and priorities of the study and understand behaviours and attitudes of the people involved (Jebb, Parrigon, & Woo, 2017). There is not much literature about the differences and complementarities between Design Thinking and Service Design as well as the way they are described in literature and used in practice. As such, this research follows a qualitative research with some tenets of Grounded Theory in order to come up with information regarding these topics.
According to Neuman (2014) a qualitative research is suitable to acquire in-depth understanding about a subject, in other words, it provides information detailing the reasons and motivations in form of words and pictures.
A qualitative research is not quantifiable but interpretative, as it investigates aspects such as experiences, behaviours, feelings and interactions. There are three important components which represent a qualitative research: data collection, coding and results presentation. The data can come from several sources as interviews, observation, records and documents. Then this data needs to be interpreted and organized through coding, which conceptualizes and reduces data, creating categories and dimensions. Lastly, there are other procedures that take part on this analytical process, which are nonstatistical sampling, writing of memos and diagrams, that can be presented verbally or written (Strauss & Corbin, 1996).
Within the qualitative research, there were used some principles and practices of Grounded Theory, such as the simultaneous data collection and analysis to perceive and reflect about the insights of the participants, as well as, coding of the full interviews transcriptions to categorize and summarize the data (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1996).The results show the relationships between the emergent concepts during the interviews with the ones in theory (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012).
This methodology is considered the most suitable one, once it allows exploring, understanding and learning about experiences and behaviours from the openness given (Charmaz, 2006), thus allowing to answer to the research questions.
3.2 Sample Design
When developing a research, choosing the sample is a crucial step, to make the study practical, ethical and efficient. Qualitative sampling approaches define a representation of the population, so that the results achieved with the sample can be generalized back in the population (Marshall, 1996).
According to Marshall (1996), there are three approaches for selecting a sample for a qualitative study: convenience sample, theoretical sample and judgement sample. The convenience sample is not very rigorous and focus on the selection of the most accessible objects. The theoretical sample is defined as the research evolves, which means that this sample creates theories from
the emerging data and then selects a new sampling to study about those theories. The judgment sample is based on the researcher’s choice of the sample and for that reason the researcher must have knowledge about the research area, as well as the existing literature.
This last sample was the chosen one to be applied on this study, as the identified and selected individuals were chosen since they were proficient and well-informed regarding the phenomenon of interest. The aim of the judgement sample is to focus on people with certain characteristics that can contribute to the research (Etikan, Musa, & Rukayya, 2016).
Hence, to define the sample design for this research, it would be important to find people who work directly and are familiar with DT and SD. In this way, Porto Design Factory (PDF), characterized as an innovation platform where students from different areas and nationalities cooperate in order to develop innovative projects, was chosen. PDF has a model of education based on problem-based learning and uses human-centered design approaches to develop the educational projects. In addition, projects are developed with business organizations. Thus, some students and teaching assistants were interviewed. The interviewed students attend the ME310 – Product and Service Innovation Post-Graduation which is focused on teaching students the innovation methods and processes for designers, engineers, and project managers of the future, and the SQUAD program focused on digital design and experience design. Later, and in order to diversify the sample, more professionals with experience in innovation services were contacted.
To the development of the study, it was decided to divide the sampling into students and professionals (Table 2) in order to perceive the understanding of people with and without experience about the different service innovation approaches.
Table 2- Organization of the sample design
Current Function Number of participants
Students
ME310 – Product and Service Post
Graduation 9
SQUAD program 4
Professionals
Teaching Assistant at PDF 2
Arts and Design Teacher 1
Healthcare industry Lead 1
Service Line Manager 1
UX Specialist 1
Former ME310 Student and Teacher 1
Total 20
As illustrated in the Table 2, interviews were conducted to 20 people from different fields. More concretely, 13 students and 7 professionals. ME310 Students have already finished their degree and have background in design and engineering. SQUAD students hare finishing their degree and have background in design, marketing and social sciences. Regarding the professionals, the teaching assistants have already attended a course at PDF and the remaining have background
in engineering, design and economics and work at companies that use DT and SD to develop their projects.
3.3 Data Collection
In order to understand the different approaches used during service innovation projects, in-depth interviews were conducted. These interviews are useful to know detailed information about the thoughts and behaviours of the participants and to explore new issues (Boyce & Neale, 2006). In other words, in-depth interviewing allows in-depth exploration of an specific topic or experience, being therefore appropriate for interpretive inquiry (Charmaz, 2006).
As mentioned before, 20 in-depth interviews were conducted. After an initial contact with PDF, students and teaching assistants were contacted to schedule the interview. Later, more professionals were also contacted and scheduled the respective interview. The interviews were conducted in person and via Microsoft Teams according to the convenience and geographical constraints of the participants. The average length of the interviews was 28 minutes. A guideline with open questions was used during all interviews as can been seen in the interview protocol in Appendix A. Open questions enable the participants to develop the topic, causing the exploration of some details which can be important (Charmaz, 2006).This guideline was initially developed to the PDF participants, however when the sample was increased by contributors out of PDF, there was a need to adapt this script and only do some of the questions. Each one of the interviews was audio recorded and literal transcribed in order to be later analysed, being the record carried out with the interviewees agreement by signing an informed consent also integrated in the interview protocol in Appendix A.
The interviews started with an introduction about the goal and scope of the research. In addition, a contextualisation was also made and some documentation with definitions shown, in case there were doubts about the subject. During the interviews, it was intended to understand the participant’s point of view and insights regarding service innovation approaches.
Concerning the structure of the interview guideline, it started with some questions intended to know an innovation project the participants were involved in or that already have been involved. The following questions were linked to the approaches used during the development of the project, as well as its advantages and disadvantages. Regarding the approaches, it was also questioned the used tools and the followed principles and steps. Lastly, the final questions were related to the expected results.
3.4 Data Analysis
In order to undertake the analysis and coding of the qualitative data, the software NVivo12 was used. This software played an important role during this process since it allowed: management of data as it organized the transcriptions of interviews; management of ideas as it systematized and provided quick access to the information present in the interviews as well as the context from which that information came from; query data since it was possible to ask both simple and complex questions of data and retrieve all the information regarding the answers to those questions; visualize data as the software showed all the contents during the analysis process and represented the relationships between those concepts; report from the data using the information of the interviews (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013).
The first step to start the analysis of the interviews was its transcription. To perform these transcriptions, NVivo Transcription. This extension of the NVivo12 enabled the download of the audio files and the automatic transcription in several segments. Although this extension was
not very precise, it helped to save some time, since the transcriptions needed some adjustments and corrections.
Afterwards, the process called initial coding started, which means that, the data was categorized into segments with short designations (Charmaz, 2006). The codes, constituted by categories and subcategories, demonstrate how the data is selected and organized, helping in the analytic process. The categories help in the organization of data, making its retrieval quicker and more efficient. Through the analysis of the multiple categories, it is easy to identify themes across the data and obtain an increased knowledge about the research.
To define these categories, the research goal, the knowledge about the research and the primary ideas which came up throughout the transcriptions were taken into consideration. Thereafter, the transcriptions were analysed exhaustively, and these categories were reformulated and refined. This process was iterative as it required the constant analyses of data in order to represent the best way possible the reality of the research. As the research evolved, the data was coded several times in different categories and concepts.
Next, after the definition of categories and concepts, there is another coding phase called axial coding (Charmaz, 2006). This coding is the process of relating the codes (categories and subcategories) to each other, creating a hierarchy.
As illustrated in Figure 5, to develop the analysis process of this research, there were created five main categories:
• Meta category: this research sample is divided into students and professionals;
• Data: this category was developed in order to understand the current function of the participants and be able to relate it with other information;
• Design Thinking: this category emerged throughout the interviews, as some participants used this approach to develop their projects;
• Service Design: this category has also arisen over the interviews, as some participants used this approach on their projects.
Within these categories, subcategories emerged from the results of the analysis of the transcriptions, being further subdivided into other subcategories that will be explained in Chapter 4. For example, when an interviewee described a principle within the Service Design Approach, that information is coded in the following way:
- Service Design; Principles; Human- centered.
In this example, principles and human-centered are subcategories of the category Service Design.
After all the codification, the analysis process began. NVivo12 enabled querying the data in a matrix format (Figure 6), allowing to do a range of questions about patterns and gain access to the content that shows those patterns. In other words, matrix coding queries enabled comparisons to be made in order to achieve the research goals. Based on the references retrieved from the interviews and stored in each node, NVivo12 crosses information of the references in different nodes and shows the impact of each node, since it shows the number of references for each node and illustrates also how many interviewees referred that node. For example, what were and how many professionals and students referred the DT principles.
At last, all the queries where analysed and interpreted, in order to achieve the results presented in the next section.
Figure 6- Example of a Matrix in NVivo12 Figure 5- NVivo12 coding tree
4 Results
This section presents the exploration of the results obtained during the interview’s analysis and coding. Firstly, the main categories of the research are introduced and explained, through the presentation of the various relationships between categories. While addressing the categories, the results of the relationships are being discussed.
Next, the final conclusions are made, in the sense that, the results of Design Thinking and Service Design are compared in order to know in what extent these approaches are different and complementary.
The categories will be presented using quotes, tables and diagrams. Every table presented during the analyses represent the number of participants, professionals and students, who referred the content that is being analysed. As the number of respondents is twenty, these values vary from 0 to 20. Therefore, the results presented with the value 0 mean that, the subcategory in question was not mentioned during the interviewees responses.
As already mentioned, the sample design of this research is divided into professionals and students to understand the different points of view of people with and without experience regarding service innovation approaches. Hence, concerning DT, the results presented are from interviews with 4 professionals and 13 students, being that three professionals talked about both approaches. The outcomes on SD came only from 3 interviews with professionals, since students were not aware of SD. Therefore, the total number of respondents was 20.
4.1 Design Thinking
Recalling the concept of DT, it is considered a human-centered approach which applies the tools of a designer and embraces human skills to stimulate transformation and development (Brown, 2008). For this reason, the aim is not only to study the DT as a general term, but also to understand what the participants consider about everything that involves DT.
To address this objective, the DT category is divided into seven subcategories: definition, principles, object of study, process, models, tools, advantages and disadvantages. Some subcategories are also subdivided in others which will be following explained.
4.1.1 Concept
Considering the DT definition, some interviews consider DT not an approach but a mindset and a practical way to reach a solution, as it aggregates several tools.
“Design Thinking is a mindset and is an aggregator of a set of theories and a set of methods that have been worked on for many years.” Professional, UX Specialist, about DT “If we think of DT as a way of seeing things it is a methodology, but what is on paper are tools to get results.” Student, SQUAD, about DT In addition, the creative side of DT is also related to what they call a mindset, since creativity comes from the ability to know the existing elements and connect them, in order to generate a new solution to an existing problem. The activation of creativity during the several phases of DT occur using visual tools.
“It is a mindset because it works with reality to solve problems in a creative way and then designers use visual communication and DT also has integrated in that mindset graphic communication tools.”
Professional, Arts and Design Teacher, about DT Being DT human-centered, it will meet the needs and motivations of an audience or it will be developed a solution which fits an opportunity to achieve that audience. In this way, it is necessary to create several hypotheses to be tested, and to create those hypotheses it is important to know well the target and even use abductive thinking to grow those hypotheses and ideas.
“DT is analysing a solution hypothesis, because everything you create is not a solution, it’s a solution hypothesis. There is no solution to anything, there are several prospects of a solution.” Student, ME310, about DT “DT is an abductive thinking, since it is not regular, that is, it doesn’t matter if I go from the general to the particular or vice versa to solve a problem. It uses a lot of instinct to solve a problem, and that’s why it is a mindset. It is the predisposition to be attentive to the way of doing things at all levels, in all channels, to all protocols, to identify needs and to improve”
Professional, Arts and Design Teacher, about DT From these results, and making a general definition from them, DT can be considered a human-centered mindset which uses visual tools to promote the abductive thinking in order to solve problems.
4.1.2 Principles
DT is carried out considering some principles, which are fundamental to understand problems, deal with obstacles and analyse and test new solutions. In this way, and because it is crucial to follow principles in the creative process, a question was asked about the principles of DT. Thereby, it was created a subcategory named principles, which in turn was divided into 8 subcategories: Human-centered; Iterative; Collaborative; Build on top; Build to think; No criticism; Sequential and Testing. Table 3 illustrates the number of participants who referred each principle.
Table 3- Number of respondents in each DT principle
Professional (N= 7) Student (N= 13) Total
Human-centered 3 10 13
Real 0 13 13
Iterative 3 8 11
Collaborative 1 5 6
Build to think, don't think to
build 1 2 3
Do not criticize 0 1 1
Sequential 1 0 1
Testing 1 0 1
The first principle of DT indicated the human-centered principle since DT is considered by the respondents, as it is essential to put in the place of the human being, seeking to understand his experiences and the social context he is involved, understanding what makes their behaviours
